Well since you've already started with Python, why not stick with that? All of the fundamentals you learn with Python will transfer over to another language. In the meantime, there's tons of cool stuff you can do with Python: web apps, games, automation, etc.

Of course if you are really interested in mobile apps, you should follow that interest. But just try to avoid hopping around too much otherwise you will always feel like you are treading water.

We did not evolve to eat meat. 100% herbivorous and our anatomy proves that.

That's simply false. Early hominids ate meat staring with Homo habilis and possibly * Australopithecus*. I am not expert in the field, and I am guessing you aren't either, but I suggest you take a look at the work of Peter Ungar, Zhe-Xi Luo, etc.

This is actually a myth, we evolved as omnivores with both meat and tubers being critical for evolution. Source: Evolution of the Human Diet: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable. Furthermore our gut structure is not the same as true herbivores: it's shorter and we can't digest cellulose.

I'm pretty sure most people agree that mammals are capable of suffering and that many aspects of the meat industry are cruel. But the common arguments I hear are a) "I eat cruelty-free meat" (because they think it is OK to kill an animal as long as it had a "happy" life) and b) "I'm opposed to the cruel practices of the meat industry and we should work to fix those problems, but it's not bad enough for me to change my habits."

We also know that people have been culturally raised to place animals in arbitrary categories. There are pet animals which cannot be harmed in any way, food animals which can be killed freely, non-cute "wild" animals which can be killed freely, and cute "wild" animals which we must go out of our way to protect. It doesn't make any sense, but it's really hard to combat generations of culture.

You're right, we can't be perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. We can always strive to be better. Any reduction in the use of animal products is beneficial, and we hope that people transition to veganism.

Just so we're super clear, I believe that I am correct with regards to the morality of eating animal products and that non-vegans are incorrect. I believe that I am correct because, in general, actions that reduce suffering are preferable to those that increase suffering. Veganism reduces suffering and therefore is more moral than the alternative.

I honestly have no idea if ancient hunters thought about the animals they killed. I'm sure it varied across cultures. But why is that relevant?

Morality doesn't change over time. Our understanding of morality does. For example, people used to have slaves and did not think it was immoral. They were wrong. It has never been moral to have slaves and over time our society realized that.

Therefore, the way people feel about killing animals has no bearing on the morality of killing animals. I think ancient hunters were morally justified in killing animals because they were doing it for survival. Most modern humans do not need to kill animals for survival.

The morality of killing sentient beings never changed, the circumstances did. I believe that it is morally OK to kill animals for survival, and for most of human history, eating meat was necessary for survival. Now, most of the world's population can survive without killing animals, so they should adjust their behaviors accordingly.

It's hard for people to see an effect. With the morality argument, people can immediately feel more morally consistent. Most people who go vegan also see a positive health impact. But environmental change is slow and impersonal.

However, I agree with you that reducing our consumption of animal products is critical to slowing global warming.